stock_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool fetches but doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, what happens with invalid symbols, or whether the data source (VCI vs KBS) changes response characteristics. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single clear sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There's zero waste. It could arguably include usage guidance, but as a standalone one-liner it's appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a straightforward data-fetch tool with a rich schema (100% coverage) and an output schema present. However, given there are no annotations and this is one of several stock-history-related tools (stock_intraday is a close sibling), a brief note about when to prefer this vs stock_intraday, or about data-source differences, would improve completeness. The output schema helps, but the lack of any behavioral caveats leaves it at baseline adequacy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description itself adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents each parameter's meaning and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get historical OHLCV price data for a Vietnamese stock' has a specific verb (Get) and resource (OHLCV price data), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stock_intraday (intraday data) and trading_price_board (current snapshot). It specifies the market (Vietnamese) and data type (historical OHLCV). Loses one point because it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related stock_intraday sibling, though the 'historical' qualifier helps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it ('historical' OHLCV data), which contrasts with stock_intraday for current/real-time data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or note any exclusions. The context (Vietnamese stocks) is clear, but there's no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which sibling to use instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.